Marketing Musings: Publishers Must Rebuild or Perish

I saw a good post from Barry Chu recently that outlines the modern advertising value chain and zeroes in on why Google and Facebook will continue to dominate. The post covers a topic near and dear to my heart – making sense of the marketing ecosystem. I agreed with most of what Barry said but one area could do with expansion – that is, the whole concept of what it means to be a publisher in 2008. Guns and Ammo magazine is used as an example but let’s face it, any attempt to aggregate an audience around a topic that is collated and edited and pushed to an audience is more or less finished, especially in terms of advertising dollars.

Everything “publishers” build going forward needs to be consumer driven, or initiated, or pulled. Barry hinted at this when he spoke of enhancing the knowledge around “intent” of a consumer. I believe in this to an extent but ultimately I think services need to be architected this way from the start. Publishers who lack this knowledge of intent need to rebuild a service the new way then kill off their old offering, not tweak the old version.

So my test for a modern “publisher” is:

1. Does the service put the user in charge of the interaction, on their terms?
2. Is a value exchange with the user inherent in the service?
3. When customers are using the service, does the publisher absolutely understand the intention of their attention?
4. As a result of the service, does the publisher learn more about the customer (i.e if they sell them a ring tone or article covering global warming, they really don’t. The point is, such a transaction is not a value exchange and the publisher can’t claim this consumer is a targetable entity going forward.)

Marketing Musings: No More Wrap Parties?

Since Facebook opened up its platform to third party developers over 16000 apps have been thrust upon the membership. A whole new industry sprang up not just in the development of the apps, but also the marketing and optimization of them, many of which are already marketing initiatives in themselves. The old advertising model ADIA (Attention Interest Desire Action) is still very much in play:

Get a Facebook user’s attention and interest, build enough desire to actually interact with your service then, have them take action, preferably in the form of inviting other friends.

What is a little crazy (as in good crazy) is just how measurable this medium has become. Many months ago I wrote that there was nowhere to hide in this new world of marketing. Everything is measurable to the nth degree and clients are increasingly understanding this, and therefore not only demanding the statistics but of course, asking why they are not higher/lower/declining/inclining etc etc.

That an electronic medium is more measurable is not exactly CNN material. What is interesting is that the entire planning/creative/production model is history. It is being replaced with a series of planning / creative/ production cycles that are constantly repeated throughout the initiative’s life. In other words, you no longer spend 6 months planning and designing a campaign which is then thrust upon the world in “set and forget” mode (with results possibly dissected a few months later); today you get what you can out there and using real time numbers you review, tweak, alter, update, enhance “on the fly” so that your actions of the past 24 hours are potentially altering your prospect’s behavior in real time.

This new world is labor intensive for the folks working on "the campaign” and certainly not news to Google advertisers – after all, they have been able to change their text based ads on the fly for years – but this “on the flyism” has infiltrated all aspects of on-line marketing and has been exposed so granularly by the massive Facebook user base and the ability to see how in real time, changes to these apps can dramatically affect your end goal.

Marketing Musings: Shape-Shifting via Facebook

My usual stance on ANY advertising that does not result in a lead that has a chance to be converted into a sale is, don’t do it – especially if you are a small business with limited resources. In general this has resulted in me viewing “institutional advertising” or general branding messages (without a call to action) as simply a waste of money. This month in Fast Company magazine a new Facebook VP really got me thinking about whether or not this type of advertising is truly dead in the water.

Read the paragraphs below - it makes complete sense that there will always be a place for the emotional pull of a generic branding ad in forming opinions in the first place. Not all companies are lucky enough to benefit from extreme word of mouth marketing and for them, spending somewhere remains a necessity. I love the phrase "shape-shifting".

----------------------------------
...The primary accelerant is a Facebook feature called News Feed, which automatically shares information across friend networks and groups. As a result, "News Feed optimization," the art and science of writing a compelling News Feed announcement, has become an industry itself. "News Feed is as important to Facebook as AdWords or AdSense is to Google," says entrepreneur and blogger Dave McClure, who is teaching the Stanford course.

Harnessing the power of News Feed, the new apps, and the booming user base to make money for Facebook itself is the task of a new hire, VP of product marketing and operations Chamath Palihapitiya. Zuckerberg brought him aboard this summer to help figure out how to exploit what Facebookers call the "social graph"--those thousands of threads that make up users' connections to other people--and to create Facebook's coming targeted advertising program. Palihapitiya, 31, is tall and whippet thin, with elegant manners and a ready smile. A former electrical engineer, born in Sri Lanka and raised in Canada, he ran AOL's instant-message group, then jumped to the venture fund Mayfield. He is part Sand Hill Roadster and part freethinker; he appeared in an art film last winter making pointed comments about Silicon Valley's "old boy's club."

It is only day 67 for Palihapitiya at his new job when we sit down to talk, but he already sounds like a true believer. While cagey about details, he isn't shy about the potential he sees for targeted ads to fill Facebook's coffers. He madly sketches on a notepad, drawing a fine distinction between demand fulfillment (I want a cheap ticket to Hawaii. Now!), which the Internet has become quite good at, and demand generation, the shape-shifting set of marketing messages that conspire to get a consumer to want something. That, he says, is where he sees serious money on the table. "Facebook users are more engaged with each other," he says. "Aren't you more likely to be interested in what your friends are doing?" Google, which focuses by and large on demand fulfillment, is a $160 billion company. "For every dollar that goes into fulfillment, there are hundreds that are spent on generation," he says, particularly by the big brands. So what could Facebook be worth? Five times Google? Ten times? "Could be," he smiles.
----------------------------------